2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNevadans have *zero* trust in Clinton, but voted for her to be President...Alll rightyyy then...
NV entrance polls showed Sanders extremely trustworthy and Clinton extremely NOT trustworthy.
Same polls showed Clinton with high experience and 'able to win the GE'.
So, if I read this right, Nevadans have zero trust in Clinton but still what her to be President
because of her experience and perceived ability to win the GE.
There is absolutely nothing you can say about these results, as it makes no sense.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Is that what we are to understand?
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Good grief. Slinging mud like that is as childish as when Clinton supporters put down Senator Sanders.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Go ahead and hide my post or flag it but there is zero to believe in when it comes to her. Her own hypocracy played back to back on video proves it. From her own mouth. Truth is truth and I haven't the time to have "class" - You know what? It's time to break down all these classes anyway. American Caste system needs to go. I personally feel you have no right to tell me to have class. Who are you to tell me how to post? I call it like I see it. Hillary Clinton doesn't tell the truth consistently. What would you call a person who consistently doesn't tell the truth?
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)How can you vote for somebody if you have zero trust in that person?
I don't get it...
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Exit polling is used to validate the vote. It 'became unreliable' when
the electronic vote stealing machines were implemented.
#2) these were entrance polls from CNN
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)some embedded Vote Manipulators! http://usuncut.com/politics/the-nevada-caucus-is-a-complete-fiasco/
Politics
The Nevada Caucus is a Complete Fiasco
Tom Cahill | February 20, 2016
136
SHARES
Facebook
Twitter
According to the latest on-the-ground reports from Democratic caucus-goers in Nevada, the entire process is being described as a “fiasco” where confusion and deception is rampant.
The Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) reported that there were “long lines, too few ballots” at caucus locations. Gwen Ritchie, who was caucusing at Hug High School in Washoe County, told the RGJ that her caucus was supposed to start at 11:30 AM local time, yet she and others were still waiting by 12:45. Edwin Basl, who is caucusing at Peavine Elementary School, told RGJ that he was experiencing “Completely silly loooonnnnngggg waiting lines. This should be a primary vote, not a caucus process.”
Reports of too few paper ballots are widespread. In one instance, voters with no ballots were told to wait in line to see precinct captains, who had more paper ballots. After waiting for hours, voters were told that they had to move all the way to the back of the line. One man reportedly waited for over 80 minutes due to ballot issues:
The lines to register stretched on for hours. Reddit user PartyPartyKickIt reported that many of the people were physically unable to stand in long lines at precinct 2008, Cheyenne High School:
Many of the people leaving are disabled. They did not come prepared to wait in lines for this amount of time, and there is no express line for disabled citizens.
There are also allegations of dirty tricks and deception. Reddit user SamBoeres posted a photo of a sign-in sheet at his caucus, precinct 5616, that had a Hillary For Nevada logo. The person passing out the sign-in sheet said it was “for the democratic party,” despite the obvious campaign logo:
One Twitter user captured video of Hillary Clinton supporters caucusing for the former Secretary of State without registering. When the person filming asked a precinct volunteer about it, they were told the Clinton supporters would register after caucusing:
There were also reports of supposed precinct volunteers registering new Democratic voters and automatically marking their preference for Hillary Clinton. Reddit user PPG113, who was caucusing at precinct 6686, alleged one precinct volunteer was working in tandem with the Clinton campaign:
registered early, followed directions at my caucus location. Had to reregister and the person copying my info attempted to marked me down for a differnt person than I told them. Only corrected after bringing it up 3 times…
The Volunteer was at the express desk, and no one seemed to know that were SUPPOSE to also still allow democratic party registration, though that is a different matter. Said volunteer clicked on hillary on his screen when I told him clearly Bernie, he froze, and on my third repeat, he corrected it as I stared at him. What, if anything it changes, I do not know since it was not my ballet sheet he was marking. After an hour or so, he happened to walk into my precinct and to the Hillary group’s tables.
And as US Uncut reported earlier today, Hillary Clinton supporters were seen changing into t-shirts made to look like the t-shirts worn by members of National Nurses United, which is one of Bernie Sanders’ most ardent union supporters.
The consumer website FreshDesk has launched a platform for observers to report irregularities at the Nevada caucus. The Sanders campaign has an official hotline, 702-778-4336, which supporters can use to report any issues getting in the way of voting.
Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact Tom via email at tom.v.cahill@gmail.com.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)Republicans have been marvelling over that for some time too, that Trump's trustworthiness is tanked but he's the leader, and Carson has the highest but he's near last.
People don't vote for who they trust. To be honest, most people vote for who will imprison them the most. Most people don't want actual freedom. It's something they say. And that is my one fear for this election - that too many people truly do hate freedom (or, more specifically, the responsibility that freedom entails) to free themselves from the Establishment.
quantass
(5,505 posts)For people to admit that they dont trust Hillary at all and "Is NOT like me" speaks volumes yet they vote for her?! Its as if they would rather stick with the devil they know than risk heading down a NEW unexplored path which definitely gets the neurons firing (and fear). I agree with your statement.
There was also some Quora post on Psychology talking about how it is much easier and preferred for humans to always choose the simpler choice. I see Hillary Clinton as the easy, few neurons firing, choice for the average simple minded person -- she's been around for some time, the press talks glowingly of her simple evolutionary changes -- whereas with relative unknown Bernie they hear words like socialism, the 1%, campaign finance reform, connections of corrupt money with disparity, etc. Woaaah, neuron overload!!!. It is likened to handing a modern day PS4 game controller to those of the late 70s Atari 2600. Wooosh! I think with time, bit by bit, the average mind gets more advanced compared to its predecessor allowing it to be more open to more complicated change the same way we all got used to a PS4 controller over a one button Atari 2600 joystick.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Doesn't say much for Americans does it?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Trust... I's important!
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)your post makes no sense. Obviously they trust Hillary because she won.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)She'll tell us the truth won't she? Those were other old lies, today we start anew. 
The GOP are salivating even more now. When they trot out Monica from hiding, it's all over. What kind of a man will Bill be while having no responsibilities while in the WH. Old gray fox in a hen house.
speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)who like to play things safe.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I don't get that either... safe from what?
speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)NowSam
(1,252 posts)maryallen
(2,172 posts)Ding, ding, ding!
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)The recent Qunnipiac and Fox polls show that Bernie's margin in the general election is about 10 points better than hers.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)But, that is what the entrance polls on CNN said...
Clinton has the backing of the media, and it worked for her today...
Totally freaking undemocratic...
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)A guy recently told me "They all lie. I don't trust any politicians, so I'll probably just vote for Hillary because I think she has the best chance to win."
Her campaign is counting on people to buy into the inevitability spin and they don't worry about integrity and honesty numbers. It's a cynical calculation that says a lot about what she thinks of ordinary people.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Sanders seems to be completely above board...
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But, most DUers are more politically aware than your average voter. Many voters who don't pay as much attention see it that way. Many also have a broad definition of lying. I have talked to many people who believe Obama lied because their daily life has not changed for the better.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)The only poll that matters is the actual vote. Entrance and exit polling are unreliable. Ask anyone who sat through the endless, horrible, no-good night of the 2004 GE 
These polls about "trustworthiness" and head to head GE match-ups are the ones that make no sense. We have been telling you this for a LONG TIME.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Exit polls for sure are extremely accurate. They are used to validate elections.
They became 'unreliable' when America started to use voting machines. And
funny, they always have republicans winning...
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)They are a random sample. RANDOM. All the things that can go wrong in a regular poll can also go wrong in an exit poll. They are just another data point to consider, not God's own law. And see 2000 below where they do not have "Republicans" winning.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/701167543390756864
Problems from 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22188-2005Jan19.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004
2000:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/01/exit-polls-election-oped-cx_kb_1103bowman.html
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)America used them up until the late 1990's. They were extremely
accurate. Then, mysteriously, they were always wrong. Why? Because
that's when America started using the private corporation''s electronic
voting machines.
This is common knowledge...
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)I need a link to verify this information since I was absent the day we learned that exit polls were infallible. Thanks ahead!
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)I am asking you to verify your post. You know, 'proof' AKA 'facts'. I posted plenty that backed up my posts. Your turn now. Pony up with some facts or go home, you lose
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...but I have a feeling people might make some sense out of it one fine evening in November.
And that might be unfortunately too late.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)English Only my Ass.... Another lie...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't see why that's still surprising to people. This shows up in poll after poll.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)You should consider it....
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The people who actually implement policy, the third-level political appointees, are all coming from the same rolodex no matter who gets elected. The Presidency isn't really much of a policy job.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts) Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
